HSC Legal Studies Question Thread

[jamonwindeyer]

Hey what could I talk about/paragraph structure for this question

Hey! This is really a broad question, it's essentially asking you to play off the constant back and forth between "Nation states need to be allowed to do their own thing," (sovereignty), and "Nation states can't be jerks or we'll stop them," (R2P). The paragraph structure, I'd probably do it response by response (UNSC, UNGA, IGO's, etc) and evaluate how effectively each of them strikes the balance. Or you could examine a few contemporary scenarios and base your paragraphs around those

[jamonwindeyer]

Does anyone have any relevant media/non legal responses in the case of R v LMW? - I can't seem to find any

This link has a few

[paigek3]

Hey! This is really a broad question, it's essentially asking you to play off the constant back and forth between "Nation states need to be allowed to do their own thing," (sovereignty), and "Nation states can't be jerks or we'll stop them," (R2P). The paragraph structure, I'd probably do it response by response (UNSC, UNGA, IGO's, etc) and evaluate how effectively each of them strikes the balance. Or you could examine a few contemporary scenarios and base your paragraphs around those

Great thank you so much! I think I'll go with the contemporary issues

[Mounica]

Hey! You'd be focusing essentially on how different measures force nation states to comply with international standards and to conduct themselves in a peaceful manner. You would also examine how those who are non-compliant are dealt with - Evaluate how things like the UNSC, UN General Assembly, IGO's, bilateral cooperation (etc) achieve these goals

can u pls give me a non-compliance example.
thanks

[paigek3]

can u pls give me a non-compliance example.
thanks

Nicaragua v USA is one I like to use, basically the USA were ordered to pay damages to Nicaragua after being found by the ICJ to have used excessive force for their own benefit and support guerrillas rebelling against the government. But USA vetoed the resolution and ignored the decision of the ICJ, showing how state sovereignty can cause non compliance as nation states (and especially permenant members!) are able to ignore ICJ ruilings. Research it a bit more to go a bit more in depth and to ensure my information is correct haha!

[sidzeman]

@jamon I don't have a state library membership so I can't access those articles haha

[chelseam]

@jamon I don't have a state library membership so I can't access those articles haha

I'm pretty sure it's free to sign up for? You can go on their website and fill in an application for a library card which they can mail to you!

[sidzeman]

Yup I've done so now thanks

General HSC paper question:
How much do you guys write for the essays? In my trial i wrote 2 paragraphs for each essay (as I didn't have time to prepare more LCM's) but this left with a crazy amount of time left over
Do most people do 3 paragraphs/issues/case studies per essay?

[fantasticbeasts3]

General HSC paper question:
How much do you guys write for the essays? In my trial i wrote 2 paragraphs for each essay (as I didn't have time to prepare more LCM's) but this left with a crazy amount of time left over
Do most people do 3 paragraphs/issues/case studies per essay?

are you referring to the two 25 markers for your options, or the crime essay?

[sidzeman]

Both actually

[paigek3]

Both actually

I did three paragraphs for each, crime question I wrote four pages and options I wrote a tiny bit over 5

[fantasticbeasts3]

Both actually

i did around 3.5 pages for crime, 6 for options. i aim to do about 4 small to medium sized body  paragraphs for crime and 4 huge body paragraphs for the options. :-)

[rodero]

Hey, guys

For those of you who do/did World Order, how do you structure your body paragraphs? I get that this structure is supposed to be dependent on the question at hand, but in all honesty I just find myself relating everything to the contemporary issues. In my trials, although the question was asking for 'The effectiveness of the UN and NGOs', I just structured it with R2P, situations that threaten peace and the nuclear threat. This might be completely wrong, but the 'Responses to world order' heading is basically covering strategies that have been done to resolve the 'Contemporary Issues'.

I find it confusing when I hear my cohort or people here structure their essays with complete paragraphs on the ICJ, UNGA, UNSC - I mean, I get they relate to the trial question since its 'The effectiveness of the UN', but shouldn't they be grouped together, rather than analysed individually since they operate as a whole body? For instance, America's unlawful invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a situation that threatened peace - it involved the UNSC, the UNGA and the ICJ. They were all mutually involved, so how are people able to separate them? I just don't know how to substantiate an essay where each paragraph is limited to a specific organ of the UN.

Anyway, sorry about my little rant - I just find it a bit frustrating that I seem to be alone in terms of how I structure my essay. It just seems to be easier and allows me to adapt to a variety of questions in my opinion. If anybody here used a structure such as: ICJ, UNSC, UNGA, NGOs for their CSSA trial question, or any similar question, than please tell me how you substantiated it and what LCMs you used in each.

If anything, I'm mainly looking for clarification on the point I raised earlier - The 'Responses to World Order' are basically what has been done to resolve the 'Contemporary Issues', aren't they? If that's the case, is there anything that is stopping me from relating everything to the contemporary issues?

Thanks guys

[paigek3]

Hey, guys

For those of you who do/did World Order, how do you structure your body paragraphs? I get that this structure is supposed to be dependent on the question at hand, but in all honesty I just find myself relating everything to the contemporary issues. In my trials, although the question was asking for 'The effectiveness of the UN and NGOs', I just structured it with R2P, situations that threaten peace and the nuclear threat. This might be completely wrong, but the 'Responses to world order' heading is basically covering strategies that have been done to resolve the 'Contemporary Issues'.

I find it confusing when I hear my cohort or people here structure their essays with complete paragraphs on the ICJ, UNGA, UNSC - I mean, I get they relate to the trial question since its 'The effectiveness of the UN', but shouldn't they be grouped together, rather than analysed individually since they operate as a whole body? For instance, America's unlawful invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a situation that threatened peace - it involved the UNSC, the UNGA and the ICJ. They were all mutually involved, so how are people able to separate them? I just don't know how to substantiate an essay where each paragraph is limited to a specific organ of the UN.

Anyway, sorry about my little rant - I just find it a bit frustrating that I seem to be alone in terms of how I structure my essay. It just seems to be easier and allows me to adapt to a variety of questions in my opinion. If anybody here used a structure such as: ICJ, UNSC, UNGA, NGOs for their CSSA trial question, or any similar question, than please tell me how you substantiated it and what LCMs you used in each.

If anything, I'm mainly looking for clarification on the point I raised earlier - The 'Responses to World Order' are basically what has been done to resolve the 'Contemporary Issues', aren't they? If that's the case, is there anything that is stopping me from relating everything to the contemporary issues?

Thanks guys

To be honest I think you should do what you're most comfortable with, that's if it works! Have you got trial results back and did you get a mark you're happy with? Cause if so I say stick to it! Although some questions may make you structure things differently.

For instance, my world order trial question I chose was to do with compliance and non compliance, and I structured my paragraphs into one talking about the UN and various international instruments and I narrowed into looking at the Geneva Protocol 1925, that took about 28 lines

Next paragraph was on state sovereignty and I used the Treaty on the Non Proliferation Nuclear weapons as my central example, taking 25 lines

Security council and veto powers was my next paragraph and I used Russian motivation in Syria as my example, taking 31 lines

Last paragraph for that question was on the ICJ in which I used USA v Nicuragua as my key example taking 24 lines

Of course in addition to the LMCID used above I had various articles from the UN charter and all that but I just thought I'd let you know what the main examples I used were. I wrote 4.5 pages


But then in another assessment I had on R2P And state sovereignty I did three paragraphs on certain issues instead of my set out before, one being on the paradox of the two terms, the next on Libya and the other on Syria. I don't have it on me right now so I don't know how many lines I used for each

So basically after that long explanation, I really think you should go with what you are more comfortable with if that is what works for you. I'd have to say I'm more comfortable doing the first format but if a question in the hsc comes up where the second style is better suited then I'll be using that. Maybe do a few practice questions on structuring it like your other classmates have just to see how you feel about it

[rodero]

To be honest I think you should do what you're most comfortable with, that's if it works! Have you got trial results back and did you get a mark you're happy with? Cause if so I say stick to it! Although some questions may make you structure things differently.

Hey, thanks so much for the reply - it's really insightful!

With your structure, I can see that the evidence you use is practically identical to my own. That is, I had Russia's veto power as my key case in my paragraph of R2P, and the Non-Proliferation Treaty for global situations that threaten peace. Now that I think about it, our structures aren't too different from one another and are actually very similar! I feel as though we've basically just swapped our sentences around; For instance, you have a paragraph on the NPT, where I presume you would then mention the nuclear threat. In my circumstance, I start off with the nuclear threat and then bring in the NPT - very, very similar

In terms of how I went in my trials, I couldn't be happier with my Legal Studies results. It was a much needed boost of confidence, especially after getting my other results back. The section where I thought I would do the worst in (human rights), was actually one of my best sections! In the CSSA paper discussion thread, I was freaking over the 7 marker since it was on refugees - something that we hadn't ever covered before. I ended up manipulating the quote so that it could suit my own contemporary issue. That is, I said something along the lines of:

As is stated in the reference, state sovereignty allows Australia to "pass laws" in order to protect or hinder human rights. However, state sovereignty does not limit Australia to simply dealing with the issue of refugees and asylum seekers - they may also "pass laws" to address the issue of human trafficking and slavery.


So yeah, walking out of that exam I was absolutely freaked that I would fail that section completely. I just thought that was such a wild question which was on something that I knew nothing about. Turns out that me, along with a friend of mine were the only students who were able to read between the lines and insert our own contemporary issue. Anyway, I've probably gone far off topic by now. Sorry about that, it's just that I'm so stoked about how I went.

I hope that you are happy about how you went overall Once again, thank you so much for giving me some insight into how you structure your World Order essays